Why did you put "cultural fit" in quotes? Your criterion is just as poorly defined as everyone else's "cultural fit" criteria and, just like theirs, acts as a way to simply exclude people because they're not like you.

He's saying they are just using skill as a criterion.

"Except in some relatively minor respects such as slang vocabulary, hackers don't get to be the way they are by imitating each other. Rather, it seems to be the case that the combination of personality traits that makes a hacker so conditions one's outlook on life that one tends to end up being like other hackers whether one wants to or not (much as bizarrely detailed similarities in behavior and preferences are found in genetic twins raised separately)."

If what you seek is open-mindedness to new ways of thinking and new ways of doing things, a positive attitude to learning, a desire to explore the software and hardware beyond the level purely necessary to meet the requirements, then say all these things so people know what you mean (and so that you do get applications from people with two decades of experience applying all these values to their life - some of those applicants can blow you away, if you can look past the smart suit; twenty years as a working adult with an attitude of never-ending learning can create some seriously skilled people).

You started your definition with "For me"; clearly, you already know that this is your definition. I bet there are people you work with who actually have a different definition but because you all use the same word, you don't realise it (cf. the common political phrases "our common values" and "hard-working families" - everyone has a personal definition of this that they simply project onto the phrase).

It was in its infancy ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_(programmer_subculture) ) and it is now. Part of it's current culture is the pretence that it's all about skill; it's not. The completely lacking in skill won't get recognised as part of it, but it's attitude and style that buys admission to that club.

These days, software places that are looking for "hackers" generally mean they're looking for inexperienced youngsters who have dabbled in a handful of currently trending web frameworks, but have "Agile" written on the crumpled t-shirt they will wear to the interview. The world's finest software engineer could turn up but because that person has decades of experience, plans their software before they write it, children in college and a liking for going home at five, the world's finest software engineer will be rejected on grounds of "culture fit". HN is heaving with people who have immersion baptised themselves in this particular kool-aid.

I've got a copy of Levy's "Hackers" on my desk, printed in 1984. The first chapter opens in the late fifties (i.e. almost sixty years ago) in the MIT model railway club.

"Hackers" are (or at least, were) people who solved problems in a particular way. A good hack involved some clever dodge around a limitation, or some new creative technical thinking to achieve a task. In code terms, someone might find a way round a memory limitation by reusing something in a non-standard way, or perhaps someone might hide some extra calculation in the fly-back time of a CRT monitor. Hacks show a knowledge and understanding beyond the standard methods, a knowledge and understanding often gathered through exploring deeply and chasing personal itches; creativity based on a more thorough understanding than just knowing the syntax. The skill good hackers tended to have was just a base knowledge that allowed their creativity to fly; sometimes someone would churn out a creative, non-standard solution purely because they didn't have the skill needed, and didn't know the elegant standard method.

A "person who can code" is not a hacker (under the traditional definition, at least). That's simply a person who can code. Some of the finest programmers are not hackers. Some of the finest hackers are not outstanding programmers. Yes, there's a broad correlation; good hackers tend to be good programmers (although certainly not the other way around), but the two terms are by no means synonymous.

If you've not read Levy's "Hackers", it's a good read.

For example, where I'm from (West Ireland), the term "Lads" is often used for everyone regardless of gender. One might hear a lady say she's "Going out with the lads" when describing a night out, with even a mostly female group of companions.

Basically, we should try to not use language which excludes others, but in some cases the person is actually using gender-neutral language from their culture and does not intend to exclude anyone.

  I understand how ingrained the “guys” habit might be for 
  some of you. It was for me. After several months of 
  concerted, conscious effort, I still slip and say it on oc-
  casion.

Either way, that's no excuse to stop thinking about things.